Chatham House Rule

Chatham House is the location of the Royal Institute for International Affairs based in St James SW1. So what is the Chatham House rule? Firstly many people make the mistake of saying ‘Chatham House Rules’, this is a common misconception because there is actually only one rule which reads as follows:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

The rule is widely used and seems to be mentioned regularly at business meetings, security committees and security conferences in an attempt to aid free discussion. The rule allows attendees to speak as individuals and to encourage free discussion without the concern for their official duties or personnel reputation.

The rule is not a gagging order, as you can chat freely about the meeting afterwards but the amenity of the attendees must stand (e.g.: name and originations), for example a list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting.

The success of the rule is really only morally binding and is at best relying upon someone’s integrity and professionalism......and here lies the potential problem!

I recently attended a meeting where the Chatham House Rule was invoked. However, I knew that one person in the room had previous for a lack of confidentiality and integrity and as a result it was impossible for me to speak freely and rely upon this ‘morally binding’ rule, which according to some internet sources the rule is half-jokingly summarised as, "You may be quoted, but you cannot be fired," or the lesser, “what happens on tour, stays on tour”

I know that as a individual both working within business and being a member of various professional bodies, I am governed by lots of different legislation, codes of conducts and ethics. There are also a number of rules that I am bound by as a security professional and by my own personal beliefs and morals. All of which if breached would result in a significant amount of damage both professionally, reputationally and legally.

So why oh why, should I put all my faith in a morally binding (nice to have) rule that is actually only enforceable in Chatham House itself..... because in the absences of knowing any one persons integrity or honesty, I have to rely on this rule. Whether I choose to speak freely will now have to depend on my interpretation of who is around me.